In the Age of Information Orland Park Public Library Can’t Use Skype to Hear Expert on Library Porn

At the November board meeting of the Orland Park Public Library Board of Trustees, the American Library Association (ALA for short) sent 4 members to champion the cause of free porn in libraries regardless of the number of children present. Against its own policy, the OPPL board allowed two of those members to speak — even though their rules forbid more than one representative from an organization to speak at a meeting.

“Groups are asked to designate a single spokesperson.” (From Public Comment Policy section A 3.1)

That didn’t stop the ALA “group” from speaking with two spokespersons. This is not surprising considering OPPL’s long history of breaking their own policies (like not calling the police on sex offenders in the library).

In response to the ALA’s takeover of the November meeting, library law expert Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries.org planned to attend and speak at the December meeting via Skype (you know, that new-fangled do-hickey on the Internets that all the kids are crazy about. My four-year-old can set up a Skype call, and does so very often.) In the year 2013/2014, this is a simple matter of providing a laptop and Wifi (which are both readily available at OPPL). To this end, Kleinman called the library several days in advance and asked them to allow him to Skype into the meeting. It took a while for him to find someone in the building who could answer simple questions, but eventually the IT staff was certain this was possible technologically… but it would be up to the Board of Trustees to “allow” it to happen.

In accordance with the Illinois Public Meeting Act, the Orland Park Public Library has "rules established and recorded by the public body" which prevent members of the public from using teleconferencing (e.g., Skype) to attend board meetings. Under the Board bylaws, most recently revised in 2010, Section 7 of the Electronic Attendance at Meetings states that, "Teleconferencing shall not be provided for members of the public to use in order to attend or participate in a meeting."

So OPPL is indeed in accordance with state law based on the library's own established guidelines.

The point is, they only follow the rules they feel like following. They break all the other ones at will so why uphold this one? Only for their benefit. In the past they have broken their rule about letting only one person from a "group" speak and allowed two members of the ALA to speak, they broke the time limit for public comment and allowed supporters to speak for 9 minutes instead of 5. They allowed a member of the public to use abusive language and personal attacks against me, which is also against their rules. They have no respect for their rules unless it suits them. Recently, and this is coming up, they broke the OMA again by censoring public comment. They are out of control and the perfect example of how not to run a public board.

That rule relates to "the public" served by the library who seek to attend the meeting or participate electronically. I am not "the public" who is served by that library and neither is ALA, as they admitted. I am the nation's leading expert on how ALA misleads communities regarding library law and related matters. OPPL allowed two ALA members to speak as experts and not as "the public." I should have been allowed to speak via Skype as an expert and not as "the public." If the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act offered to speak via Skype, would OPPL deny him the opportunity? If the President of ALA offered to speak via Skype, would OPPL deny her the opportunity? If the creator of Muslim Journeys offered to speak via Skype, would OPPL deny her the opportunity? Of course not.

Note, this is my quick answer made on a quick review of the policy and quickly jotted into a reply to a comment on an online story. It is not a full and complete answer, and it is not my final answer, in a manner of speaking.